APHC010453402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7554/2026 Between: 1. LAGUDU POTHANNA, S/O LATE NOOKA RAJU, YEARS, PROPERTY OWNER,R/O. AMALAPURAM VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 2. MODI ALIAS LAGUDU CHANDINI ACHYUTHA SUDHA, W/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. AMALAPURAM VILLAGE, DISTRICT. 3. KOLLI NAYUDU, S/O. LATE KONDA, BUSINESS, R/O. RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. LAGUDU AINAVILLI MANGA LAKSHMI, W/O. LAGUDU SRINIVAS, D/O. AINAVILLI BHIMARAJU, 101,NEW COLONY, GANDREDU VILLAGE, KAKINADA DISTRICT. Petition under Section circumstances stated in the Memorandum of High Court to Quash all further proceedings in D.V.C No. 100 of 2025 on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7554/2026 LAGUDU POTHANNA, S/O LATE NOOKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPERTY OWNER,R/O. AMALAPURAM VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT MODI ALIAS LAGUDU CHANDINI ACHYUTHA SUDHA, W/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VILLAGE, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI KOLLI NAYUDU, S/O. LATE KONDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC R/O. RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LAGUDU AINAVILLI MANGA LAKSHMI, W/O. LAGUDU SRINIVAS, D/O. AINAVILLI BHIMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2 101,NEW COLONY, GANDREDU VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the all further proceedings in D.V.C No. 100 of 2025 on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPERTY OWNER,R/O. AMALAPURAM VILLAGE, MODI ALIAS LAGUDU CHANDINI ACHYUTHA SUDHA, W/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC R/O. RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) P. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT LAGUDU AINAVILLI MANGA LAKSHMI, W/O. LAGUDU SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2- PEDAPUDI MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the all further proceedings in D.V.C No. 100 of 2025 on the 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026 file of V Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kakinada in so far as the Petitioner No.l to 3 (Respondent No.2 to 4) are concerned IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners in D.V.C No. 100 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above Quash Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. T D PANI KUMAR 2. T D PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026 The Court made the following ORDER: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.100 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners herein before the trial Court by submitting petitioners' practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioners shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course of trial, hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage. So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same. 5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026 be decided during the course of trial, and this Court, in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings at this stage. 6. In this context, it is apt to note the dictum held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others1, by the Apex Court in its vivid terms in the following way: 7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. 7. In Vishal Shah Vs. 7. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 22025 Live Law (SC) 240 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioners herein/respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, in D.V.C.No.100 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear, when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 01.09.2026 MDP